I saw someone wearing that on a T-shirt last week and thought, "Thank God."
Che Guevara was Fidel Castro's executioner.
How did he, a monstrous mass murderer, responsible for the blood curdling murders of thousands of teenagers, women and men, become a popular cultural figure embraced by the t-shirt industry, college students and hollywood directors? It's not like we walk around proclaiming Charles Manson a brilliant & kind revolutionary. There must be some machiavellian backdrop. Because this seems like an Alice in Wonderland upside- down world where we celebrate a cold-blooded killer.
On Tuesday Benicio del Toro, who plays Che in Soderbergh's new movie walked out during an interview because he was "uncomfortable" with the questions. He dedicated his Cannes award to Guevara.
I first noticed this cultural phenomenan when my step-son started using "Che" as his pen name on the internet. Then Gisele Bundchen catwalked in a "Che bikini", & suddenly everyone under 21 was wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt. Taco Bell dressed up its Chihuahua spokesdog like Che for its "Taco Revolution" ads and now Steven Soderbergh comes out with his Che Guevara movie.
Beloved revolutionary? Or serial killer?
Myth #1: He was an "intellectual".
Fact: One of the first acts Guevara is known for when he first came to Havana is a massive book burning. Then he signed death warrants for the authors and had them hunted down. He jailed or exiled most of Cuba's best filmmakers, poets and writers. In the mid-60's, thousands of "effeminate" teenagers were taken by force and dumped into prison camps he helped create where the logo read: "Work will make men out of you."
Myth #2: He was for the "people".
Fact: Guevara said he "manufactured evidence" and went on to say "I don't need proof to execute a man...I only need proof that it's necessary to execute him." When he addressed the U.N. in New York in 1964 he proclaimed, "Certainly we execute. And we will continue to execute as long as it is necessary." And he received applause for this. According to the Black Book of Communism, the revolution's firing squad executions, which he started, reached 14,000 by the beginning of the 1970's. The people's crimes? Being anti-Stalinist or being a practicing catholic, among others. He loved and promoted Stalinism, which of course was itself responsible for between 3.5 & 60 million deaths.
Myth #3: He was a Counter-Revolutionary just like U.S. 60's Hippies.
Fact: Che Guevara was anti-rock & roll, making it illegal to own a rock record, to listen to rock music or god forbid! actually play rock music. Che's own grandson, Canek Sanchez Guevara fled Cuba and lives in Mexico. He's a heavy metal rock guitarist and in an interview with Mexico's Proceso magazine said, "In Cuba freedom is nonexistent. The regime demands submission and obedience...the regime persecutes hippies, homosexuals, free-thinkers and poets. They employ constant surveillance, control and repression." He was one of the lucky ones; he got out alive. Although he blames Fidel for the repressive regime, it was his grandfather who helped create it.
Che was such a visionary, he helped create the notorious peligrosidad predelictiva law ("dangerousness likely to leading to crime"); which predated Tom Cruises' job in the movie "Minority Report". Like Minority Report, where a special police department called "Precrime" apprehends criminals based on foreknowledge provided by 3 psychics before any crime is actually committed; all you have to be arrested for in Cuba is your likelihood to commit a crime. Beaten, torture, labor camps, death.
And the machiavellian backdrop? The American media and hollywood who have chosen to set Che in the light of a 'benign revolutionary' have relied solely on diaries that he wrote and the memories of his co-thugs. The diaries went through Fidel Castro's propaganda machine and came out the other side with very little reality, and a whole lot of fiction.And what of the hundreds of survivors and witnesses of this genocidal regime created by Che and Fidel, who mostly live in Florida, having fled the Marxist-Communist nation? They have been ignored in favor of this sanitized version of reality approved by Cuba's dictator. They stand ready as witnesses to tell their story. Time magazine has never come knocking. Neither did Soderbergh.
Post-script: An estimated 80,000 Cubans have died trying to flee Cuba by boat, rafts, makeshift anythings that might get them to the shores of the United States of America. They've died by drowning, sharks and exposure.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
CarmellaS
scanner
Desnee Flakes
Arthur Louis
Victoria Holt
Jacob Sugarman
Salon.com
Comments
Not that I endorse either of their opinions, but Trent Reznor and Axl Rose have both engaged in some level of Manson hero-worship in the past. Just sayin'.....
rated
Besides, Che lives. Just ask Elvis.
WOOF
there are no 'batista' t-shirts, away from 8th street. there's a good reason for that.
It's pretty dumb to not know he was a mass murderer, granted, but it's not as if they are intentionally celebrating mass murder. They're just ordinary dumb, not evil.
And he he was a psychotic murderer. Well done, sir.
Also, to some people, history is what Gisele wore a few years ago.
I also like the t-shirt that has Che Guevarra's picture and the slogan "I have no idea who this is." Unfortunately, the only folks likely to wear that shirt are the people who DO know who Che was.
Randy Viscio
March 26, 2009 12:18 PM
All revolutions destroy something. Communist revolutions have all been born out of struggles against repressive governments, beginning with the Bolsheviks.
Inevitably, the famines, mass killings, gulags, and misery they bring is always far worse than what they replaced.
Leftists have a dilemma. For all of your outraged advocacy of the oppressed, you don't have the principles or the guts to actually stand up to real oppression wherever it may be.
As an OIF vet, I know that the Left must discount me as a dupe or celebrate me as a victim. But I'm neither. I'm what you lefties aren't. You can make legitimate arguments that we should not have invaded Iraq, but I know that I put my ass on the line, and because of what we did, the Kurds don't have the threat of genocide over their heads, Uday and Qusay won't be handpicking the next young lady to rape and discard like a dog in the street, and Iraqis are voting.
It's been over 40 years since Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were murdered for heroically taking a stand against Jim Crow in the South. The white Left has never reproduced them.
The hated police walking a beat here in South Side Jamaica Queens do more to protect the people from oppression (by street thugs) than the Left has ever done.
Where are the Leftist human shields that could protect the women of Congo from a massive epidemic of violent rape?
They are busy voicing their outrage about an off-color comment on a radio show. Sensing their own spinelessness, they fight the power vicariously through a murderous thug like Guevara.
March 30, 2009 10:02 PM
It wasn't my ass.
I don't personally agree with the nominal support for Somoza by the US.
Is your smug smirk the glee you feel over the millions who have starved in North Korea, or are you reminiscing about the glory days when Bernard Coard had just murdered the soft-socialist Maurice Bishop and begun the massacres that characterize true communism before the evil Raygun stopped him.
"Have ya ever won against leftists anywhere?!"
I am breathing aren't I? My mother is not being raped in workers re-education camp. Our victories are different than yours. We don't require utopia. We want to survive the existence of your genocidal sect, not terminate the individuals who comprise it.
Effete and cowardly as you are, I suppose survival is all but assured.
After reading this post, you would think that Che Guevara would have fit into the Bush Administration like hand in glove! Anti-intellectual, homophobic, homeland security like policies, etc. And genocidal! Why he sounds like Christopher Columbus!
BTW, when did Tom Cruise go latin?
There is also a lack of context in your statements. Guevera was hardly the only political leader to imprison intellectuals, artists and homosexuals. It's still quite common all over the world. I don't support the beatification of any one, period, but your post implies that Cuba would have been much better off without Castro or Che and that is simply untrue. And yes, I have visited there several times, as have many, many Canadians. Most of us don't buy the ridiculous American sanction of Cuba and we also don't like it when American politicians try to tell our country that we should follow their example in that regard. We don't, and we won't.
people love to think everyone in the world can be reduced to white hat cowboy or black hat cowboy, but it is just not that simple in reality
and sometimes when you have monsters running your government, you need other monsters to get rid of them - give me a monster who cares at least a little bit about the poor and the powerless any day over a monster who doesn't, if those are my only options - and for many people those are indeed the only options
"Where are the Leftist human shields that could protect the women of Congo from a massive epidemic of violent rape?"
being run over by tanks in gaza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie
for deborah young:
i'm continually amazed by the higher standards we hold other people's heroes to: these are just men. i love thomas jefferson, but he kept his wife's half-sister as a slave and possibly a concubine. i imagine che was at least partly a monster, but now he's just on a t-shirt.
my first instinct is to tell you to get over it. we have andrew jackson, who killed thousands of indians on our $20 bill, and you're sweating a t-shirt. that is to say, i think you have a point, but i'm not sure what it was.
I submitted a link to OpEdNews.com. I'll let you know if they accept it.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=86847
This may get some interesting comments there!
I beg to disagree, and if you think I am wrong I challenge you to find one single Russian wearing a Stalin t-shirt.
Can't help to think you perhaps might not have much first hand knowledge of South American history. I suggest some reading of books, PREFERABLY by Spanish authors, people with a stake in the matter, rather than international observers.
I also suggest you do some research also on the concept of the 'puppet dictator', and on what the role of the 'Economic hitman' is (it's mentioned on an online movie called Zeitgeist Addendum).
You can't believe or hear in the news and you have to ask yourself who publishes those biographies and what is it that you are expected to believe.
While I do not necessarily agree with Che's methods, I do agree with what he believed in, which was essentially "Latin America for the Latin Americans". It doesn't seem an awful lot to ask now, does it? To be able to benefit directly from the wealth of your land?
Whether you're American or British you would agree this as is fair for them as it is for the people of your own country, is it not?
It is true that he was a communist, I doubt he was pro-Stalin though. Yet you seem to think he was one of his kind. I could be wrong, but then what I am saying is he, like you or me didn't have all the answers, and although you and I now know he was a monster, it might have seemed like a better alternative to what they had.
He is a 20th century myth together with Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Bob Marley and Gandhi, and there is a reason.
Regards,
Jd.
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/
Well, it's good that Canadians think it's okay to take advantage of the good cuban citizens. I'm sure those who are sitting in prisons appreciate the good will.
How did Che Guevara become a pop-culture figure? Why do teenagers love wearing his image? Simple. It's the rebel image.
And now secondly, I have to ask you something.
Are you against Guevara's actions or are you against what he stood for?
Because this whole blog seems like an American rant against communism, rather than a single revolutionary.
Perhaps you should consider the other angles to this.
Over here in England, the IRA are called terrorists, yet head over to Northern Ireland, and there are whole walls painted with murals of the Northern Irish crushing the English. "One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter", bears particular relevance here.
However, the one thing that is really puzzling me is why, if you think we should all get over his death, did you feel the need to post this blog?
"Well, it's good that Canadians think it's okay to take advantage of the good cuban citizens. I'm sure those who are sitting in prisons appreciate the good will."
Wow, that was really American. Maybe (unlike yourself) Obama realises that Cuba is important, militarily strategy wise, and if the USA was out of favour with Cuba, Cuba could then let an enemy of the USA set up camp there. I'm sure we all know of the Cuban Missle crisis. Now, I highly doubt that any American wants Cuba to allow say...Al' Qaeda to set up camp on Cuba with America powerless to stop it, and with them on America's doorstep.
Consider the politics of what Obama is doing, and maybe America might regain some of the respect it has lost from the international community.
I have a Mandela T-shirt. "Madiba" was mostly good. And when it mattered most, he was very good. He still is. I like my T-shirt.
Ms. Young,
You seem to have conflated two things here, and that helps make neither point. What young idiots choose to wear is not something of tremendous cosmic significance. What of all the Invader Zim stuff out there?
And for goodness' sake, when Taco Bell uses the iconography of Che Guevara to sell food, can you not see the irony? They either don't know or don't care (the ad people probably know but don't care, the TB folks likely neither know nor care) who Che Guevara was, but figure if he;s hot with kids he'll help them devote disposable income to "fourth mean."
The more serious point is an attack on the historical figure of Che Guevara. Like shooting fish in a barrell, yeah? Same thing with the guy he replaced, same thing with the governments of that time in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, and Pinochet was a real bloodthirsty tyrant who also thought it was a good idea to disappear people who were prone to commit crime -- and I doubt he got the idea from Che Guevara. New regimes that come to power by force (and some that don't) wipe out their enemies -- read history, been going on a long time.
It is actually quite possible, despite myth/fact #1, for someone to be an intellectual and a poltical executioner. Our first great example of this is neither Che Guevara nor Leon trotsky, but the Terror that followed the French Revolution -- and those were our friends and allies. Arguably, being stepped in theory and ideas makes it easier to kill actual people and delude yourself into believing your doing something "good." There early days of revolutions are particularly violent in an ettempt to foretsall a counter-coup -- even more so if one is "remaking society" a la the French, the Bolsheviks, and the post-Batista government in Cuba.
Being for the people, in the context that everyone understood at the time the phrase was used in Latin America in the 1960s, did not mean being for all the people, but being for the impoverished majority. Just like what "populism" has meant in the U.S. this past century.
Che Guevara saw himself as a revolutionist, most certainly not a counter-revolutionary. What revolution in Latin America was he countering -- that of the U.S. backed rentier-capitalist strongman? I think the term you want is counter-cultural revolutionary, and I think the historical record is clear that that is what Che Guevara was about. This is the bit about "remaking society" after the revolution -- very, very nasty stuff.
I offer none of this -- not one bit -- in an effort to argue that Che Guevara was not responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands during and after the revlution. Of course he was. He himself denied none of it. Though he owes more to Mao than Stalin (who was dead and had been denounced bythis time), I think Che Guevara would have agreed with one particular aphorism Stalin is reported to have liked: "If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs." Probably got that originally from Trotsky -- as if killing human beings is in ANY WAY akin to killing pre-hatched chickens.
The fault of Che Guevara was not what he ultimately wanted to achieve -- don't forget that Castro would have preferred U.S. aid to that of the Soviet Union, sought it, and was rebuffed -- but rather how he went about it. One can see -- and some of those who have commented here have pointed out -- some of what the Cuban revolution sought to achieve: the literacy rate, decline in malnutrition, more equitable spread of wealth, one of the best health care systsmes in the world when one considers the ratio of highly-trained physicians to patients. All of this is evidence of a more humane culture than existed under the previous government and social culture. The problem is thatthe very means used to achieve these significant but partial gains has made the others impossible.
An evolution in socialist thinking took place in Western Europe in the mid-20th century, spawned primarily by the writings of Antonio Gramsci. Google "war of position war of movement" to see the communist condemnation of armed revolution -- by anyone at any time.
watch the vid...
Tom Cruz is Tom Cruise, fyi. I know this because he's my boyfriend and all.
For me, I think at times, particularly in oppressed societies, whether we are hippies in the 60's, or women in the new milennium:), we all need something and someone to believe in.
I recently read Naomi Klein's, Shock Doctrine. I encourage everybody to read it. It really gave me a new perspective on economic and political oppression now and then.
I enjoyed your point of view today. Thanks.
Come to think of it, Latin American politics in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 80s wasn't too warm or fuzzy, either.
I understand that sometimes the truth is more complicated than we can grasp from our limited perch but there's still no getting around the fact that he killed innocent folk.
Like someone else here has said, "one mans hero is another mans terrorist".
Che is no favorite of mine, however I understand why he is so revered!
You do not seem to have much of a grasp of History, when it comes to Latin America. Prior to Castro, Cuba was ruled by the bloodthirsty regime of Fulgencio Batista. Castro is a saint compared to him! Likewise you do not seem to realize that the Cuban Revolution was a popular revolution. Yes there are thousands of "Cuban Exiles" however, these exiles are where they are, because they were the followers of Batista. They were run out of their homeland, by their fellow countrymen! These people now run parts of Florida, like they are once again in Cuba. They have no sense of American pride. They instead long for the day, when they can return home, and go back to their old ways. The way of subjugating their less fortunate countrymen. This is the case for much of Latin America, where corrupt governments were installed with the help of American aid. Living in Hawaii, you should have a better grasp, on how many people including many Hawaiians do not share your idealized version of American imperialism! You may not like Castro, the Cuban exiles may not like Castro. However much of the world admires him! The same for Che Guevara.
Now, I do not disagree with the point him being murderous or barbaric. But those do not exclude being for the people or intellectual.
Yes, many people died in the Revolution and its aftermath. There were excesses on both sides, both with Batista and with Fidel. However, you accuse him of being "genocidal." Can you point to any specific genocides he engaged in, with specific statistics and references to each event? I am very interested in any support you can marshal to support these assertions.